- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
US Court: Mark Zuckerberg Not Accountable For Social Media Harming Children
US Court: Mark Zuckerberg Not Accountable For Social Media Harming Children
The judge stated that control of corporate activity alone was insufficient to establish liability
The US District Court, Northern District of California has ruled that Mark Zuckerberg is not personally liable in 25 lawsuits that alleged his company Meta Platforms made children addicted to social media.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California rejected the accusations on insufficient evidence to support claims that Zuckerberg directed efforts to conceal mental health risks associated with Facebook and Instagram.
The plaintiffs brought claims under the laws of 13 US states - Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.
They called Zuckerberg the ‘guiding spirit’ behind the alleged concealment efforts. They accused him of ignoring repeated internal warnings about the risks and downplaying them publicly.
However, the judge found a lack of specifics about what Meta's billionaire co-founder did wrong. She stated that "control of corporate activity alone is insufficient" to establish liability.
Representing the plaintiffs, Previn Warren, a Partner at Motley Rice remarked that his clients would continue gathering evidence "to uncover the truth about how Big Tech has knowingly prioritized profits over the safety of children."
The 25 lawsuits are among several hundred by children, families and school districts seeking damages from Meta, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok and Snap's Snapchat for social media addiction.
Dozens of state attorneys general are pursuing similar cases against Meta, linking its social media platforms to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interference with education and daily life of children.